Jump to content
The Education Forum

Logical implications of nearly simultaneous heads shots


Recommended Posts

The president was killed at the Grassy Knoll, not at the upper end of Elm Street.

The shot through the neck was not a fatal shot. We know from the "single bullet" analysis that bullet did not penetrate any vital organs or any major arteries and did not hit any bone. It is extremely likely that the president would have survived and probably even completely recovered from that wound.

The president was killed at the Grassy Knoll. A wounded president was not an option for the conspirators.

There is a lot of evidence that supports the proposition that the president was hit by two , nearly simultaneous , shots to the head. Lets assume that to be the case and see what logical deductions can be made.

In this thread we get to play Sherlock Holmes!

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The first "logical deduction" is that, since it takes 1.2 seconds [at best, as I recall] to cycle the bolt on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and reacquire the target...if those two shots were closer together than 1.2 seconds, then it eliminates the possibility that both were fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. If the shots were separated by 1.2 seconds or more, then the M-C is still possibly part of the equation.

So perhaps we need to better define "nearly simultaneous," if that's even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the shooters were coordinated,someone saying when to fire,like in a firing squad.Ready,aim,fire.It would be hard to tell how many weapons were fired.When you hear a twenty one gun salute you don't know how many guns went of,although you know its more than one.

In a place like Dealey Plaza,with tall buildings and echoes.Coordinated shots are not beyond the realms of possibility.And the thought of two simultaneous head shots are not either .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first "logical deduction" is that, since it takes 1.2 seconds [at best, as I recall] to cycle the bolt on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and reacquire the target..

Mark,

Sorry to correct, but I believe it was actually 2.4 seconds to reload the gun. It was the equivalent of 42 Zapruder frames.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I agree, but suggest something that I've mentioned before but it's too out there afaik. There was shot from an opening in the curved wall behind Newman and one from about the south end of the triple underpass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first "logical deduction" is that, since it takes 1.2 seconds [at best, as I recall] to cycle the bolt on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and reacquire the target...if those two shots were closer together than 1.2 seconds, then it eliminates the possibility that both were fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. If the shots were separated by 1.2 seconds or more, then the M-C is still possibly part of the equation.

So perhaps we need to better define "nearly simultaneous," if that's even possible.

"Nearly simultaneous" is defined to be about 300 milli seconds , or a little more than a quarter of a second.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The possibility of men firing and hitting at the same time,without coordination would be remote.But with coordination,a good possibility.With coordination you can fire more shots while people,witnesses would become confused to how many shots and there location.

I think,the first shot,from TSBD area was a distraction to get people thinking that is the area the shots came from.This would be a unsilenced shot for that reason.If the other shots were silenced,and coordinated,you could get a few bangs for your buck,figuratively speaking.

Found this at Acorn Site.

If Oswald were the only shooter there would have to be at least 2.3 seconds between shots, assuming he used the telescopic sight found on the Mannlicher Carcano. The three shots that the Warren Commission claimed were fired from Oswald's rifle could not have been shot faster than 6.9 seconds. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described the shots as a "flurry." Two of the shots were often described by witnesses as so closely spaced that theyseemed "simultaneous" and had "practically no time element between them." Additionally, there is a substantial amount of testimony, presented in this article, that describes the later shots as sounding different from the first shot. Governor Connally's initial reaction to the gunfire was "that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."

Source:

http://www.acorn.net...ue/guns_dp.html

See also Volley Fire,a military tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire_%28infantry_tactic%29

Edited by Malcolm Ward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can infer that there was a signal. And if there was a signal then there was a signal giver.

JFK Umbrella Man-More Doubts.

More likely, it was exactly what it appeared to be: a method of signaling shooters, perhaps that JFK had been hit, perhaps that he still seemed to be alive, perhaps to keep shooting. Although it was a sunny day, it had rained the night before, and there was a wind, so it would not have been operationally illogical to move forward with using an umbrella. The fact that the New York Times and the establishment in general have never considered the umbrella worthy of real, serious inquiry, tells us that if the umbrella was part of a plot, it was not so bad a choice.

RIO GRANDE BUILDING

In the last article, I mentioned that Witt, the self-proclaimed “Umbrella Man,” worked for Rio Grande National Life Insurance in the Rio Grande building. I mentioned that the same building housed the Immigration office frequented by Lee Harvey Oswald, and the local office of the highly negligent Secret Service. I mentioned that Rio Grande wrote a lot of insurance for the military. And, separately, I noted the strong military intelligence connections to key figures connected with 11/22/63.

One thing I did not mention, but should have, was that Military Intelligence itself had offices in that Rio Grande building.

Read the full story here.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/12/05/jfk-umbrella-man%E2%80%94more-doubts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The possibility of men firing and hitting at the same time,without coordination would be remote.But with coordination,a good possibility.With coordination you can fire more shots while people,witnesses would become confused to how many shots and there location.

I think,the first shot,from TSBD area was a distraction to get people thinking that is the area the shots came from.This would be a unsilenced shot for that reason.If the other shots were silenced,and coordinated,you could get a few bangs for your buck,figuratively speaking.

Found this at Acorn Site.

If Oswald were the only shooter there would have to be at least 2.3 seconds between shots, assuming he used the telescopic sight found on the Mannlicher Carcano. The three shots that the Warren Commission claimed were fired from Oswald's rifle could not have been shot faster than 6.9 seconds. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described the shots as a "flurry." Two of the shots were often described by witnesses as so closely spaced that theyseemed "simultaneous" and had "practically no time element between them." Additionally, there is a substantial amount of testimony, presented in this article, that describes the later shots as sounding different from the first shot. Governor Connally's initial reaction to the gunfire was "that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."

Source:

http://www.acorn.net...ue/guns_dp.html

See also Volley Fire,a military tactic.

http://en.wikipedia....nfantry_tactic)

Malcolm,

I think your wrong about it's taking 6.9 seconds to fire three shots from the MC. The shooter whould have already had the first round chambered and, obviously, would have "acquired" the target before taking his/her first shot. Therefore, it would have taken only 4.6 seconds for all three shots.

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree Tommy,that comes from the paragraph I quoted from the Acorn source.The point I was really getting at was,

Two of the shots were often described by witnesses as so closely spaced that they seemed "simultaneous" and had "practically no time element between them."

from same paragraph.Perhaps in hindsight I should have shortened the Acorn paragraph. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone with almost 40 years of regular rifle shooting experience hunting with a partner in the field, I can tell you with authority that only someone who is unfamiliar with bushwacking type On-stand hunting would offer the notion that people waiting on and firing at the same target from different positions are unlikely to fire near-instantaneously.

This is a super common occurance between my dad and I, or my son and myself.

When deer hunting from stands some distance apart, there have been many- more than a score of times, when we both happened to see a deer walk into a field at the same time, and fire within the same second- much the same way Kellerman describes the "volley" that sounds like fast handclaps.

It is not wierd. It is not uncommon. It would also carry over from shot to shot if both persons began shooting at about the same time, and worked a bolt and fired a second time. As long as they were using bolt actions, and had similar skill levels, the chances of firing at nearly the same instant are quite high.

That isn't any sort of mathematical calculation, or a guess from someone idly considering the probabilities without any actual facts.

My opinion is based on a a huge amount of experience in the field- practical knowledge about the subject.

If the teams doing the shooting had any sort of coordination at all.....yellow lines painted on the curb, someone opening a door, unbrella or using radios to begin the firing or signal a "go", I should think the chances of simultaneous shots would be even more likely.

Over the years I've seen many offer the observation that it was very unlikely or even impossible that shots could happen so close together from shooters at different locations. I've never commented on this subject before, but that is a silly position to take, and I think all serious experienced partnered hunters would agree with me, having experience this themselves repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...